Jump to content

Kwong v de Blasio (fka Kwong v Bloomberg)


Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
Petition for Rehearing En Banc was filed on 7/23, I just checked the docket, nada. That's 34 calendar days (counting weekends and crap) and still nothing. Maybe they're drafting a doozie of a denial or just holding it as long as they can so Jensen can't file cert petition ASAP after denial (let's face it, CA2 is...ehm yeah).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Yeah but when petition is filed it takes time for all of the responses and amici to come in plus SCOTUS usually grants the government an extension to file a response.. They play games with that to keep it from being distributed for conference until the last minute. I also love how there's no vote tally

 

Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

No. 13A567

Title:

Shui W. Kwong, et al., Applicants

v.

Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of the City of New York, et al.

Docketed: December 4, 2013

Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Case Nos.: (12-1578)

 

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dec 2 2013 Application (13A567) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from December 19, 2013 to February 2, 2014, submitted to Justice Ginsburg.

Dec 4 2013 Application (13A567) granted by Justice Ginsburg extending the time to file until February 3, 2014.

Edited by skinnyb82
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Took them long enough. They waited damn near 60 calendar days gee I wonder why.

Clock for cert filing runs from the date of the enbanc denial though. I think they waited just because they could.

 

You know the reason. Because the gummint has a bottomless checkbook to pay for the continued denial of rights, drawn from the purses of the very same people it continues to oppress.

 

We pay for our own chains, and then have to pay the cost of fighting not just to have them removed but to keep them on, and then we pay the penalty for their being there in the first place. It'd be a game changer if a 1983 suit actually succeeded, and Madigan, Bloomberg, Daley or any of the other grabbers had to pay the legal fees and damages out of pocket.

Edited by Tango7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

It's an excellent read. What I don't get is why CA2 even believes that means-end scrutiny below strict scrutiny should be applied in a case which involves charging money (I don't buy that NYC isn't profiting off issuance of pistol permits) to exercise a constitutionally protected right. Are all of the CA2 judges in full-blown Heller and McDonald denial?

 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

Edited by skinnyb82
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jensen definitely gives a good breakdown of the different standards of scrutiny applied by the circuit courts, including the Third Circuit's extremely lax "rational basis" in Drake which basically says "if a state passed a gun law they must have done so with the public's safety in mind, therefor the law must further a public safety interest" or that is like saying "when it comes to gun control, the state is right because the state is right".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here it is.

 

A good read.

 

Thank you for that. It's a really well written petition, and I'm hopeful that they will accept it. The splits among the circuits as to nominal fees and equal protection review standards should make them want to take it, but sometimes they shy away from topics if they feel the time isn't right. Living in NYC, I really want to see this law struck down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jensen hits a home run in the first few paragraphs. It is unconstitutional to charge ANY fee to exercise a right. If this case is taken up and the pistol permit scheme is struck down, so goes the NJ (or MA, I forget) FID system and the FOID here. It doesn't matter if the fee only covers expenses and there is no profit. It is still unconstitutional.

 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I'm not surprised anymore. I had my fingers crossed but no high expectations. They did take Abramski and Castleman this term so who knows what or why they do what they do. It would appear that the cases must be pretty straightforward or outlandish.

 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Didn't the cost of the FOID only get increased after going through the courts where the compromise was to then make it good for 10 years?

If so (that's what I thought I remembered) this just seems so fundamentally a poll tax, don't you think we could win this (same argument again) in IL and who cares if they appeal it to SCOTUS. There should be no expiration unless you loose the right with these kinds of costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...